From patchwork Mon Mar 4 19:10:24 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Andrey Albershteyn X-Patchwork-Id: 13581053 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A30A162171 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 19:12:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709579538; cv=none; b=UuPQGabES9bmWZLMbA7PItTxKKD1Rj9U2z9GGqFvB99CeT2YG8QOc256LSstrx9nb1ttYzhrIExq2GR+UmNB4BqGE/ZKwMZVJClFkTMk9p7iD+9SxIDjReKIYaE9+wrDFIJO12etAphx5rxh78a534CYSbUt3BCthKs80wCipTo= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709579538; c=relaxed/simple; bh=grAu43Eie92E+XOQ7d04C6cdM5uR0Ox/AK1rLCL9Nso=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mpjoIgc9IUATQRW8tVq4Dzccs4YRuoGdOrCDK83oKjPoOby9veK8o9cKVsyE27y7kwNURL+Cbmh3608WGgpw1brVNFPLP2ECc83V08kd4ZmHqXgT3BNcY+XtX+sL53j5DpjcYWqH5RoqVDCCKg+wQKDcTL1mqfaHmntx4ofj/Ls= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=azehu8jH; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="azehu8jH" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1709579535; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=qXH4oA7cWAgzu2mxLxXFHd34t/bbMKvcNeTx3/w9/Kc=; b=azehu8jHoGYu+m6LS0q8mnLckNgzFUueZsvxcjXsEu0/RGhlFpBw+ICbtwJYApLUlPlIQd 1dswl2bOb9ZU6FgkJJUz3O6Dwa4FxHyfd9ZpA7rQBsTmKqoLH/3HIG4b8IaWsu3Ce4YSV5 V9X2G+sogrIyHTeDR8JH2Tm/jHFIX54= Received: from mail-lf1-f72.google.com (mail-lf1-f72.google.com [209.85.167.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-118-HO89YyZUPhSScEf05g7MQg-1; Mon, 04 Mar 2024 14:12:14 -0500 X-MC-Unique: HO89YyZUPhSScEf05g7MQg-1 Received: by mail-lf1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5133f0f1b9bso1694004e87.2 for ; Mon, 04 Mar 2024 11:12:13 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709579532; x=1710184332; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:references:in-reply-to :message-id:date:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=qXH4oA7cWAgzu2mxLxXFHd34t/bbMKvcNeTx3/w9/Kc=; b=RM6qe/e9wOwxZVFSgWIFT2IlC47+4ufXfNCru05VfmlYgRok8wcp7VLM16mLpXpTtY azoDfVktvTUbv+uOaB5xehTWoFoOogcsOMwHDutiQgDiwNw9xZaQZQt8y3K6aVli3tdd rIDNbFtF0/Wfdv6kq11FbOK8bhz9V/GYgLQjTI1QbWdIGxN/r7Wxp7znqx60i12ytjZ3 W+VKo32iYxzzuFPUlpvnG56aF4EZZp2W62m9JgPNI+4tOI7XLOfoeOnmMx5253OxQjV6 FRfkykRpbY1L0NUEK5MDkdAGrdX6aV2ebfm4qAHXDUs4tU0XJEgpXFsKxrA8fbts1HK+ dQtA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyPdoRXK0YQAPLt1O3yCmsOMQeUk57WV479KK4t0JJ8OVcsGmmh Q0XZQcRXANQ0ftl3OxlQGqp0nL0MDL9OMpEUg/Ucm1PoWsC41zJgFYydARTR9EeLq7Gqj02hs4A EJtqpS3I+g1XLnO9bQ0ELtCSLCnadbgSewRH22XJrPWjemorUZ9XMez9UjWxmfsXsblWPD+pgEm zkzgQu0wLFW1gQGKoz3Krg9ugYwgi+OwEP5QFtgVs= X-Received: by 2002:a19:6406:0:b0:512:eb9a:dab7 with SMTP id y6-20020a196406000000b00512eb9adab7mr6191441lfb.2.1709579531961; Mon, 04 Mar 2024 11:12:11 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFmvwQHZczKkRO+3Qv9f+16OlN4ewbg8aTrkBU/tuYNoG9gi7a1s9fyz7dMVO+hCtnT/D4e4A== X-Received: by 2002:a19:6406:0:b0:512:eb9a:dab7 with SMTP id y6-20020a196406000000b00512eb9adab7mr6191421lfb.2.1709579531436; Mon, 04 Mar 2024 11:12:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from thinky.redhat.com ([109.183.6.197]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a11-20020a1709064a4b00b00a44a04aa3cfsm3783319ejv.225.2024.03.04.11.12.10 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 04 Mar 2024 11:12:11 -0800 (PST) From: Andrey Albershteyn To: fsverity@lists.linux.dev, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, chandan.babu@oracle.com, djwong@kernel.org, ebiggers@kernel.org Cc: Andrey Albershteyn , Eric Biggers Subject: [PATCH v5 01/24] fsverity: remove hash page spin lock Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 20:10:24 +0100 Message-ID: <20240304191046.157464-3-aalbersh@redhat.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.42.0 In-Reply-To: <20240304191046.157464-2-aalbersh@redhat.com> References: <20240304191046.157464-2-aalbersh@redhat.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: fsverity@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com The spin lock is not necessary here as it can be replaced with memory barrier which should be better performance-wise. When Merkle tree block size differs from page size, in is_hash_block_verified() two things are modified during check - a bitmap and PG_checked flag of the page. Each bit in the bitmap represent verification status of the Merkle tree blocks. PG_checked flag tells if page was just re-instantiated or was in pagecache. Both of this states are shared between verification threads. Page which was re-instantiated can not have already verified blocks (bit set in bitmap). The spin lock was used to allow only one thread to modify both of these states and keep order of operations. The only requirement here is that PG_Checked is set strictly after bitmap is updated. This way other threads which see that PG_Checked=1 (page cached) knows that bitmap is up-to-date. Otherwise, if PG_Checked is set before bitmap is cleared, other threads can see bit=1 and therefore will not perform verification of that Merkle tree block. However, there's still the case when one thread is setting a bit in verify_data_block() and other thread is clearing it in is_hash_block_verified(). This can happen if two threads get to !PageChecked branch and one of the threads is rescheduled before resetting the bitmap. This is fine as at worst blocks are re-verified in each thread. Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers Reviewed-by: Andrey Albershteyn Signed-off-by: Andrey Albershteyn --- fs/verity/fsverity_private.h | 1 - fs/verity/open.c | 1 - fs/verity/verify.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/verity/fsverity_private.h b/fs/verity/fsverity_private.h index a6a6b2749241..b3506f56e180 100644 --- a/fs/verity/fsverity_private.h +++ b/fs/verity/fsverity_private.h @@ -69,7 +69,6 @@ struct fsverity_info { u8 file_digest[FS_VERITY_MAX_DIGEST_SIZE]; const struct inode *inode; unsigned long *hash_block_verified; - spinlock_t hash_page_init_lock; }; #define FS_VERITY_MAX_SIGNATURE_SIZE (FS_VERITY_MAX_DESCRIPTOR_SIZE - \ diff --git a/fs/verity/open.c b/fs/verity/open.c index 6c31a871b84b..fdeb95eca3af 100644 --- a/fs/verity/open.c +++ b/fs/verity/open.c @@ -239,7 +239,6 @@ struct fsverity_info *fsverity_create_info(const struct inode *inode, err = -ENOMEM; goto fail; } - spin_lock_init(&vi->hash_page_init_lock); } return vi; diff --git a/fs/verity/verify.c b/fs/verity/verify.c index 904ccd7e8e16..4fcad0825a12 100644 --- a/fs/verity/verify.c +++ b/fs/verity/verify.c @@ -19,7 +19,6 @@ static struct workqueue_struct *fsverity_read_workqueue; static bool is_hash_block_verified(struct fsverity_info *vi, struct page *hpage, unsigned long hblock_idx) { - bool verified; unsigned int blocks_per_page; unsigned int i; @@ -43,12 +42,20 @@ static bool is_hash_block_verified(struct fsverity_info *vi, struct page *hpage, * re-instantiated from the backing storage are re-verified. To do * this, we use PG_checked again, but now it doesn't really mean * "checked". Instead, now it just serves as an indicator for whether - * the hash page is newly instantiated or not. + * the hash page is newly instantiated or not. If the page is new, as + * indicated by PG_checked=0, we clear the bitmap bits for the page's + * blocks since they are untrustworthy, then set PG_checked=1. + * Otherwise we return the bitmap bit for the requested block. * - * The first thread that sees PG_checked=0 must clear the corresponding - * bitmap bits, then set PG_checked=1. This requires a spinlock. To - * avoid having to take this spinlock in the common case of - * PG_checked=1, we start with an opportunistic lockless read. + * Multiple threads may execute this code concurrently on the same page. + * This is safe because we use memory barriers to ensure that if a + * thread sees PG_checked=1, then it also sees the associated bitmap + * clearing to have occurred. Also, all writes and their corresponding + * reads are atomic, and all writes are safe to repeat in the event that + * multiple threads get into the PG_checked=0 section. (Clearing a + * bitmap bit again at worst causes a hash block to be verified + * redundantly. That event should be very rare, so it's not worth using + * a lock to avoid. Setting PG_checked again has no effect.) */ if (PageChecked(hpage)) { /* @@ -58,24 +65,17 @@ static bool is_hash_block_verified(struct fsverity_info *vi, struct page *hpage, smp_rmb(); return test_bit(hblock_idx, vi->hash_block_verified); } - spin_lock(&vi->hash_page_init_lock); - if (PageChecked(hpage)) { - verified = test_bit(hblock_idx, vi->hash_block_verified); - } else { - blocks_per_page = vi->tree_params.blocks_per_page; - hblock_idx = round_down(hblock_idx, blocks_per_page); - for (i = 0; i < blocks_per_page; i++) - clear_bit(hblock_idx + i, vi->hash_block_verified); - /* - * A write memory barrier is needed here to give RELEASE - * semantics to the below SetPageChecked() operation. - */ - smp_wmb(); - SetPageChecked(hpage); - verified = false; - } - spin_unlock(&vi->hash_page_init_lock); - return verified; + blocks_per_page = vi->tree_params.blocks_per_page; + hblock_idx = round_down(hblock_idx, blocks_per_page); + for (i = 0; i < blocks_per_page; i++) + clear_bit(hblock_idx + i, vi->hash_block_verified); + /* + * A write memory barrier is needed here to give RELEASE semantics to + * the below SetPageChecked() operation. + */ + smp_wmb(); + SetPageChecked(hpage); + return false; } /*